There will be NO Land placed in Trust by the BIA/DOI as a consequence of 2 SCOTUS decisions:
1. Carcieri v Salazar (argued by Theodore Olson, for which AG Coakley wrote an amicus)
Because of the manner in which Carcieri was written, there is NO "Carcieri Fix" as some claim.
2. Hawaii v the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (joined by 29 other states)
This could not be more clear:
In the 9-0 decision on Hawaii v. the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Justice Alito wrote, "It would raise grave constitutional concerns" [if] Congress sought to "cloud Hawaii's title to its sovereign lands" after it had joined the Union. "We have emphasized that Congress cannot, after statehood reserve or convey....lands that have already been bestowed upon a state".
Prior to those 2 SCOTUS decisions, the Mashpee Wampanoags did NOT qualify for placing Middleboro land into trust for numerous reasons. The simplest of those disqualifying reasons are:
1. the distance from Mashpee to Middleboro exceeded to 30 mile distance specified in IGRA to prevent "Casino Shopping," which this is.
2. the Mashpee Wampanoags have NO historical ties to Middleboro and claimed solely Mashpee in their application for recognition
Governor Patrick filed a lengthy opposition response with the BIA regarding the LIT application for the Middleboro property that's worth reading.
Cedric Cromwell recently claimed an 'amended' application was submitted to the BIA.
The application cannot be 'amended,' as claimed, but must be re-submitted. It has not appeared in the federal register acknowledging 'receipt,' but a FOIA request has been submitted to both the BIA and the NIGC (National Indian Gaming Commission, whose approval would be required for any 'management agreement.')
FOIA provides 21 days for a response.
There will be NO LIT issued by the BIA/DOI!
I would also point out that since the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe lacks the financial resources and expertise to erect and manage a "Bingo Hall" or "Slot Barn," a management agreement with others is required.
Tribe Renegs on $50 Million Bond
The process of approval by NIGC requires 5-7 years. A recent response from NIGC indicates NOTHING has been submitted by the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe.
THANK SENATE PRESIDENT MURRAY FOR A CAPE COD CASINO
Day 75 OF Murray Holding Casino Bill Hostage
Sandwich—Today Tom Keyes, Sandwich’s Delegate and Deputy Speaker to the Barnstable County Assembly of Delegates and Republican candidate for State Senate in the Plymouth & Barnstable District, hopes the people of Cape Cod and the Islands want casinos in their backyards because it might happen due to Senate President Therese Murray’s failure to pass the casino bill.
Right now, the Mashpee Indians are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying to have tribal land federally recognized. Once that happens, the tribe can move forward with a class 2 gaming facility. They don’t need the casino bill. The Aquinnah have already have land on Martha’s Vineyard that is designated. They can start building tomorrow if they wanted.
DESIGNATED? That you have used that term clearly indicates your failure to comprehend the distinctions of this issue.
The Massachusetts SJC ruled that the Aquinnah couldn't build a shed without a building permit, but let's, simply for the sake of discussion consider that they might be able to do as you suggest.
For any type of SLOT BARN to be profitable, you need TRAFFIC, water, waste water treatment and a host of other things that make this consideration folly.
Silly Season gets even sillier
It is well known that both tribes have been trying to work with the state to build destination style gaming resorts (Class 3). Negotiating with the state is the faster route for getting these facilities built, but it is not the only way. If the state continues to fail to pass the casino bill, the tribes can still proceed ahead.
Faster route? Again, you have misunderstood. IF the Commonwealth approves Class 3, that will open the floodgates. The Tribes CANNOT PROCEED, as you claim.
The state of Connecticut only receives a small portion of the slots money, because that state dragged their feet too long on negotiating over their Indian casinos. With this being day 75 of Murray holding the bill hostage, it looks like Massachusetts is on the same path. Not only will the Commonwealth lose out on revenue, but the Cape and Islands may get unwanted casinos.
The State of Connecticut has a "Compact" with both Tribes that's worth reading.
A little more research is required on your part about the required "Compact."
“Where’s the leadership? Senator Murray knows that the tribes are going to push forward without a bill. Her failure to act will cost the state millions and millions of dollars,” said Keyes. “Now is the time for new leadership rather than more Beacon Hill drama.”
The Tribes CANNOT push forward, as you claim.
Instead, I would argue that were that Commonwealth to approve legislation, it will open the floodgates. There is no mechanism in state law to limit the numbers of SLOT BARNS around the Commonwealth.
Keyes, 43, is in his second term on the Barnstable County Assembly of Delegates. A two term Sandwich Selectman, he has also served on numerous boards and committees including: Water Quality Review Committee, Board of Selectmen Economics Liaison, Cemetery Commission, Assembly of Delegates Standing Committee on Economic Affairs, the 21st Century Taskforce to review the Cape Cod Commission and draft operational changes to the County Commissioners, President of the Cape Cod Selectmen and Councilors’ Association and Board of Directors, and member of the Massachusetts Municipal Association’s Selectmen and Councilors’ Association.
Keyes founded his private practice, Keyes Quality Systems in 1998, providing consulting and contract services in management, ethics and compliance. He and his wife, Melissa have two daughters, Madelynn, four, and Julia, one.
Mr. Keyes,
The refusal of Beacon Hill to conduct an Independent Cost Benefit Analysis is pretty striking, yet you have failed to include that issue.
What will the impacts of a SLOT BARN be to a Host Community or the surrounding region? (For $600 million, you get a Destination SLOT BARN, not the elegant facility some pretend.)
Along with SLOTS, comes increased crime. What costs will that impose on Host Regions?
Along with free alcohol 24/7/365 come increased DUIs (as included in the Spectrum Gaming Report prepared for the CT DOSR that surely you have read.)
Massachusetts, at present, is unable to appropriately address DUIs. What will it cost to increase police presence to make our roads safe?
What is the cost of the BLOATED REGULATORY BUREAUCRACY that will be required? Does that include the costs of expanding the Attorney General's Office to monitor and enforce new laws, such as money laundering? What about court costs, local costs of investigation, enforcement and prosecution? Are property owners going to pick up the tab for wealthy gambling investors?
As a Republican, are you supporting increasing the size of government?
It might appear that in your desperation to create a phony campaign issue, your analysis has been superficial, lacking substance and ignoring glaring flaws in the hastily drafted legislation.
A federal report determined that every $1 in tax revenue gambling paid costs taxpayers $3. What are your thoughts about that equation?
I would recommend that you review the information at United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment